Skip to main content
Glama

DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence

by cloud.dchub

Permitting & Moratorium Intel

get_permitting_intel
Read-onlyIdempotent

Data center PERMITTING & MORATORIUM intelligence — curated, HUMAN-VERIFIED jurisdiction records: moratoriums, zoning restrictions, tax changes, utility pauses. Each record is stage-tagged (read the detail prefix: "Enacted" / "Proposed" / "Speculative"), with jurisdiction, state/country, the source article URL, and map coordinates. The permitting-risk axis for site selection that no other machine-readable source serves — e.g. New York's statewide >=50MW moratorium, county-level halts. FREE and full for every caller. Answers "is there a moratorium where I want to build", "which jurisdictions just tightened data-center zoning". Try: get_permitting_intel class=moratorium — or state=MN. Rendered live as the Permitting & Zoning layer on https://dchub.cloud/land-power-map. Do NOT use for tax INCENTIVE programs by state (use get_tax_incentives); this tracks restrictions and risk per jurisdiction.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
classNoRecord class: "moratorium" | "zoning" | "tax" | "utility_pause" (optional)
stateNoUS state filter, e.g. NY or MN (optional)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quotaNoCaller quota state (remaining calls, tier) when available.
_entityNoPayload class discriminator (e.g. facility|market|iso_grid|queue_results|deal|report|response) — branch on this before parsing the rest.
citationNoMachine-readable citation: how to attribute DC Hub (dchub.cloud) for this payload. Normally an OBJECT {source, url, license, cite_as, retrieved_at}; a bare string is accepted and carries the attribution line itself.
provenanceNoCollection-level provenance block: {source, method, as_of, verification_counts, cite_url_template, license, cite_as}. Quote the verification level when citing.
_front_doorNoIn-band front-door hint (first workflow-entry tool of a session): call plan_query(intent) first for the ordered multi-step plan.
_return_loopNoSuggested next-session delta call (get_changes since=24h) so you pull only what changed.
site_evaluation_handoffNoPre-built follow-up calls (analyze_site / get_water_risk args) when the payload carries coordinates — an array of {tool, parameters, why} entries.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: records are 'curated, HUMAN-VERIFIED', stage-tagged, and include source URLs and coordinates. It also discloses that the tool is 'FREE and full for every caller' and rendered live as a map layer, going beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well-structured: purpose is front-loaded, followed by record attributes, value proposition, example queries, a link to the live map, and an exclusion with alternative. Each sentence contributes useful information, though it is longer than strictly necessary. The organization makes it scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only lookup tool with an output schema present, the description covers the data scope, record structure, access cost, example use cases, and explicitly routes away from the sibling tool for tax incentives. The mention of human verification and stage-tagging gives the agent context about data quality and interpretation. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage for parameters is 100%, so the schema already documents class and state. The description reinforces with example values ('class=moratorium', 'state=MN') but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema gives. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States it provides 'PERMITTING & MORATORIUM intelligence' for data center jurisdiction records, listing specific content types (moratoriums, zoning restrictions, tax changes, utility pauses) and record attributes. It explicitly contrasts with get_tax_incentives, saying 'Do NOT use for tax INCENTIVE programs by state', which distinguishes it from siblings. The description also gives concrete example queries, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when not to use the tool ('Do NOT use for tax INCENTIVE programs by state') and names the alternative (get_tax_incentives). Provides example invocations like 'get_permitting_intel class=moratorium' and 'state=MN' and answers typical questions an agent might ask ('is there a moratorium where I want to build'). This is clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DC Hub — Data Center & Power Intelligence toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes despite some thematic overlap, and each description includes explicit 'Do NOT use' guidance to prevent misselection. However, a few pairs like search_intelligence vs semantic_search are nearly identical in function, and the sheer number of tools increases the chance of selecting the wrong one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a predictable 'get_*' prefix for data reads, and many others use verb_noun patterns (analyze_*, rank_*, save_*, set_*). There are a handful of outliers like ai_capacity_index, grid_transition_radar, and site_selection_canvas that break the pattern, but overall the conventions are consistent enough for an agent to infer meaning.

Tool Count2/5

With 82 tools, this server is extremely heavy compared to typical MCP servers (3-15 tools). While the domain is broad, many tools serve narrow sub-purposes and could be consolidated (e.g., multiple site-scoring variants, multiple grid telemetry endpoints). The count overwhelms an agent's ability to choose efficiently and feels like over-fragmentation rather than necessary granularity.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of data-center siting intelligence: site analysis, grid, fiber, water, climate, tax, permitting, deals, news, saved-site management, and meta-planning. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete or update operations for saved sites), but the core workflows are well-supported and the descriptions are comprehensive.

Resources